Search

Project Loon: #Google want to use balloon-powered internet to cover the world in wifi. “Designed to connect people in rural and remote areas, help fill in coverage gaps and bring people back online after disasters.” #tech
Watch: http://youtu.be/m96tYpEk1Aohttp://www.google.com/loon/

Gov. Rick Perry, taking aim at a powerful but embattled Travis County Democrat, used his line-item veto power Friday to eliminate millions of dollars in state funding for the prosecutors who investigate public corruption cases in the state capital.

Perry said he vetoed the funding because the investigative unit had “lost the public confidence.” He was referring to the recent DWI conviction — and unruly jailhouse behavior — of Democratic Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, whose office oversees the public integrity unit. Democrats accused Perry of trying to shut down state corruption investigations.

It was the most prominent and controversial veto of more than two dozen he issued Friday evening. Including two previous vetoes, Perry nixed from the regular 2013 session a total of 26 bills and several line-item appropriations from two state budget bills.

Among the other measures wiped out by his veto pen Friday: Senate Bill 17, a $10 million measure, backed by conservatives, that would have provided state training for armed classroom teachers; HB 950, the state Lilly Ledbetter Act, designed to prevent wage discrimination against women; and Senate Bill 219, which would have required Texas railroad commissioners, who oversee the oil and gas industry, to resign before running for another state office.

Perry also nixed House Bill 217, which restricts the sale of some sugary drinks for certain public school kids; House Bill 1160, which would have made it easier for towns with populations of no more than 2,500 and water rates at least 50 percent higher than some nearby cities to obtain the rights to run their water systems; and House Bill 2836, which had ordered a study of the state’s curriculum standards and limits the number of benchmark exams school districts can administer locally.

The governor’s veto of a higher education oversight bill, SB 15, was not entirely unexpected but it generated plenty of heat Friday night. Legislators from both parties accused the University of Texas System Board of Regents of micromanaging the University of Texas at Austin and harassing its president, Bill Powers. The bill, which would have reined in regent power, included a provision that regents could not fire a university president without a recommendation from a chancellor.

But Perry, who appoints university regents, ensured that they kept all their power and authority.

“Limiting oversight authority of a board of regents,” Perry said, “is a step in the wrong direction. History has taught us that the lack of board oversight in both the corporate and university settings diminishes accountability and provides fertile ground for organizational malfeasance.”

The bill had been the subject of intense negotiations between supporters and Perry’s office. The original bill included a requirement that regents appointed during the interim could not vote on budget or personnel matters until the Senate Nominations Committee had considered them or 45 days had passed. After negotiations with the governor’s office, the number of days was lowered to 20 and then the provision was eliminated entirely. But that concession was not enough to save the bill.

That veto and others provoked some bipartisan outrage.

The author of the UT board bill, state Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, described the veto as a blow to the state’s public universities.

“Given the continued lack of transparency and persistent conflicts, this legislation clearly was necessary, due in no small part to some of Governor Perry’s appointees,” Seliger said. “The decision to veto SB 15 ensures that the conflicts, controversies, and lack of transparency will continue. It harms the reputation of Texas’ world class public universities and hinders their ability to attract the best students, faculty, and administrators to this great state. ”

Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, author of the gun training bill for school employees, also criticized the decision to veto his bill. He said the $10 million cost assigned to the legislation was inflated and grossly inaccurate. He also complained that no one had called his office to discuss a possible veto.

Democrats, meanwhile, were incensed about Perry’s veto of the gender equality bill.

“Once again our governor has made women’s health and women’s rights a target in order to bolster his own political standing,” said Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, author of the bill and often mentioned as a potential 2014 gubernatorial candidate.

Perry has authority to nix both bills and individual spending items. According to calculations by the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities, Perry vetoed a total of $29 million in general revenue spending.

He made several line-item vetoes in House Bill 1025, a key budget bill of the session. The targeted vetoes include a series of special funding items at higher education institutions including $2 million for the petroleum engineering program at Texas A&M International University and $1.5 million for the Department of Mexican-American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, as well as smaller appropriations at the the University of North Texas, Prairie View A&M University and the University of Houston.

In a statement, Perry explained those vetoes as his effort to combat rising tuition, which he attributed in part to the rise in “non-formula funding” at higher education institutions to launch new academic programs that never go away.

“Institutions are rarely held accountable for these funds, which is why many of them stay in the budget, year after year, even after their purpose is no longer clear,” Perry wrote. “This is not the best use of hard-earned tax dollars.”

His veto of the funding for Travis County’s public integrity unit is unprecedented and far-reaching.

It is aimed squarely at Lehmberg, who helped prosecute the criminal case against former Republican U.S. Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Lehmberg’s career and reputation took a nosedive since she was convicted and jailed for drunk driving in April.

During a bill-signing ceremony at the Capitol earlier Friday, the governor pointed to the humiliating videotape of Lehmberg’s arrest and initial jailing. The video shows a clearly impaired Lehmberg acting belligerent and unruly. She cried, kicked the door of her jail cell and repeatedly demanded that deputies call Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton.

“Travis County is going to have to make a decision about whether or not they keep a district attorney who obviously has some real problems,” Perry said. “People who have looked at the videos I think will come to the same conclusion as most folks, that that was pretty inappropriate activity.”

Perry’s office had made it clear that he would yank state funding for the fraud-busting unit unless Lehmberg resigned, even though prosecutors said it would inflict major damage on their ability to ferret out government corruption in Austin. The head of the unit, Assistant District Attorney Gregg Cox, said the unit has 35 employees and is handling more than 400 cases.

“It’s an entire division of the district attorney’s office, three separate units and it’s significant blow to the office,” Cox said.

Democratic activists have questioned whether Perry was using his power to halt or cripple investigations into agencies that he helps oversee as governor —including the ongoing investigation of the troubled Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

A liberal watchdog group, Texans for Public Justice, said Perry “likely” violated one of several laws that the group says prohibits public officials from using their office to coerce action from another. They filed a complaint, both with Lehmberg and County Attorney David Escamilla, also a Democrat.

TPJ director Craig McDonald said the line-item veto and Perry’s nixing of the ethics sunset bill — the one that would have barred railroad commissioners from running for office without first resigning — was disappointing but not surprising.

“Perry sits atop what many believe is the most corrupt regime in recent Texas history. It’s no surprise he wants to kill ethics reform and wipe out the state’s public corruption watchdog,” he said. “Perry’s office is an ethical black hole. Ethics reform goes in. Nothing comes out.”

Guest Column: Pulling Young Texans Into Civic Life
by Regina Lawrence
texastribune.org,

During the fall of 2012, in the midst of a hard-fought presidential campaign, the Annette Strauss Institute convened several hundred Central Texans in Austin to discuss why young people often don’t “bother” to vote.

Some young people who attended were already actively engaged citizens; beyond voting, they were volunteering in their communities and trying to encourage their friends to vote. Others were disengaged: young people who had not yet stepped up to the civic duties many of their elders seem to take for granted. And in between were those who were involved in their communities or with social issues but who were not participating in traditional politics.

What we heard that evening was instructive. “How can I find my polling place easily?” one young woman asked. She described a frustrating 10-minute Google search that yielded no simple, straightforward directions on where to go to vote. (Happily, the Travis County clerk happened to be in the audience, and pledged to improve online information for voters.) This moment illustrates the informational challenge faced by inexperienced voters — young or old — when they first try to get involved.

Other challenges go deeper than information. “It seems like in politics, you have to be red or blue,” said a young man who described himself as active in his community but not in politics. “What if I don’t want to choose a team?” His question illustrates how politics can seem particularly uninviting to today’s young people — even those who are engaging in other ways in civic life.

The evidence from the new Texas Civic Health Index, based on U.S. census data, is clear: Young Texans are significantly less engaged than older citizens in almost every aspect of political life. But the data — and our experiences with young people themselves — also suggest that many young people are involved in other ways, and that civic engagement can be nurtured more effectively.

First, let’s look at political participation. Voter registration is a gateway to greater political participation: Registered citizens are much more likely to engage in other ways as well, like contacting their elected officials. And of course, it’s the necessary first hurdle to actually voting. But only 43.1 percent of Texans between the ages of 18 and 29 were registered in 2010, compared with 67.4 percent of those 30 and older.

Enlarge
.

Voting rates in Texas are also strongly correlated with age. Only 30 percent of Texas’ young voters report that they voted in the 2012 election, versus 61 percent of those 30 and older. Low participation among the young is one reason that Texas trailed nearly every state in the country for voter turnout in 2012. In the 2010 midterm election, which brought many of our current state legislators into office, only 16.1 percent of younger citizens reported voting, versus 42.7 percent of citizens 30 and older.

At the same time, young Texans are not wholly disengaged. Two in 10 aged 18-29 volunteer for organizations, compared with 26.3 percent of those who are 30 and older. And among the youngest group queried by the census — 16- to 24-year-olds — 18.5 percent have volunteered. Unlike the gaping political participation divide between younger and older Texans, these data suggest a younger generation that is just about as involved in civic life as its elders. And the far less severe age gap in discussing politics is also noteworthy — as is the slight edge young people hold in expressing their opinions on the internet.

Enlarge
.

None of these rates is as high as we might want for a truly active citizenry. But these differences across forms of political and civic involvement urge us to consider what it is about politics that is not inviting to young people.

National data show several reasons why young people don’t vote. Interestingly, about 30 percent of young people nationally said they didn’t vote in 2010 because they were “too busy” — roughly the same percentage of Texans of all ages who said the same. Other reasons also stand out. For those in college, almost one-fourth said they were out of town or away from home — a significant hurdle for young people who have to figure out how to vote long distance when they don’t attend college in their hometowns or states. For those not attending college, the second-most frequently stated reason for not voting was that they “weren’t interested” or that they felt their vote “wouldn’t matter.”

How can these obstacles and attitudes be reversed?

Several particularly important approaches stand out for nurturing engagement among young people.

One is strengthening civics education in our schools. Research shows that students who receive high-quality civics education in school are more likely to vote and to discuss politics at home, more likely to volunteer and work on community issues, and are more confident in their ability to speak publicly and to communicate with their elected officials.

Texas is one of nine states that require both course completion and student assessment in civics. But while testing and assessment are important, the most effective approaches go further. Civics education needs to involve students in active learning that builds useful civic skills and creates a sense of civic attachment.

Another step is improving access to higher education. Better-educated Texans are more likely to vote; more likely to express their views to family, friends and elected officials; more likely to volunteer and join civic organizations; and more likely to work with others to address problems in their communities.

In part this is because education is associated with higher income, greater leisure time and greater self-esteem. Earning a college degree produces people with greater resources for civic participation. But even limited exposure to the college classroom is correlated with levels of engagement, suggesting that the college experience itself plays an important role in creating actively engaged citizens. This is no small concern for a state in which 20 percent of residents lack even a high school diploma, and another 26 percent have only that.

Another approach is building more opportunities for online participation — in which young people already have a slight edge. According to a recent national survey, online social networks are most heavily used by young people, and approximately 66 percent of social media users use these platforms to “post their thoughts about civic and political issues, react to others’ postings, press friends to act on issues and vote, [and] follow candidates.” Accordingly, one path to building more engaged citizenship runs through digital and social media.

Policy changes can also help. For example, same-day voter registration is correlated with higher voter turnout overall, and among young voters in particular. In 2008, according to CIRCLE, 59 percent of Americans aged 18-29 whose home states offered Election Day Registration voted — nine percentage points higher than those who did not live in EDR states.

Another vital factor is the introduction to civic life that young people receive at home. For example, adolescents who talk frequently about political affairs and current events with their parents score higher on measures of political knowledge and, when they enter young adulthood, tend to vote, volunteer and engage in civic activities more frequently than do youth who seldom discuss politics with their parents.

Finally, it is crucial that political officials and institutions do not treat the currently under-engaged as if they will always be so. As the recent Millennials Civic Health Index noted, “When political parties, civic associations, news organizations, and other institutions assume that young people do not engage, these institutions may avoid trying to recruit youth, which can lead to a cycle of disengagement.” The same can be said for other groups — Hispanics, African-Americans, immigrants and others — who could be assertively invited into the civic life of our state.

Regina Lawrence directs the Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life at UT-Austin, where she also serves on the faculty of the School of Journalism. The Texas Civic Health Index, a comprehensive summary of data from the U.S. Current Population Survey, is produced by the Annette Strauss Institute in partnership with the National Conference on Citizenship.
This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/06/guest-column-pulling-young-texans-civic-life/.